About one-third of people on the planet drink water that is dangerous for health, while even a larger part of population lack adequate sanitation, according to the UN chief.

About a half of the global population could be facing water shortages by 2030 when demand would exceed water supply by 40 percent, says United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon.

Opening the Water Summit in Budapest, Hungary on Tuesday, the UN chief warned against unsustainable use of water resources.

“Water is wasted and poorly used by all sectors in all countries. That means all sectors in all countries must cooperate for sustainable solutions. We must use what we have more equitably and wisely,” Ban said, as cited by the UN website.

“By 2030 nearly half the global population could be facing water scarcity. Demand could outstrip supply by 40 per cent.”

Governments cannot cope with the problem on their own, without the “full engagement” of all other players, including business, Ban underlined.

Agriculture remains the largest consumer of freshwater. “There is growing urgency to reconcile its demands with the needs of domestic and industrial uses, especially energy production,” the UN Secretary General said.

He urged industrial giants as well as small farmers to learn to get “more crop per drop” by using advanced irrigation technologies and focusing on “climate-resilient” rather than water intensive crops (i.e. rice).

Climate change adds to the risk of water shortages in large parts of the world and that is another challenge that nations should cooperate on.

“We must make sure that water remains a catalyst for cooperation not conflict among communities and countries,” Ban stressed.

Global warming means not only more droughts, but also more floods.

“That is why we must do everything we can to keep global temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels,” the UN chief said.

Back in 2000, world leaders adopted Millennium Development Goals (MDG). Among them was to halve the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation by 2015.

“While the MDG target for providing access to improved water sources has been reached, 780 million people lack this basic necessity,” Ban said on Tuesday. “Roughly 80 per cent of global wastewater from human settlements or industrial sources is discharged untreated. Water quality in at least parts of most major river systems still fails to meet basic World Health Organization standards.”

About one-third of people on the planet drink water that is dangerous for health, while even a larger part of population lack adequate sanitation, according to the UN chief.

“Some 2.5 billion people lack the dignity and health offered by access to a safe, decent toilet and protection from untreated waste. One billion people practice open defecation.”

Such insanitary practices, common for many developing countries, are considered among the main causes of diarrhea – the second biggest killer of children in the world after pneumonia.

“Even when it does not kill, repeated diarrhea can cause childhood stunting. These children are more vulnerable to disease and their brains do not develop as they should,” Ban’s speech at the Budapest Water Summit reads.

In his words, investment in sanitation is a down-payment on a sustainable future, with economists estimating that every dollar spent can bring a five-fold return.

183 comments:

Have read this kind of story my entire life, also about sub-Sahara Africa. It never changes. Conclusion is there is not enough possible wealth to be gotten to make a go of it? Or is it the character of the people or something else? Since it hasn't changed in my 50 years of reading of it I really doubt it will improve now. No answer or magic want here.

What comes to mind to me in the USA, as regards sub-Sahara Africa, would be trying to make a living in Northern Nevada by grazing the sage with goats and having a lot of kids. A tough proposition. Better to leave it vacant and avoid the human misery. It is beautiful in its way, but really really hard to live there for any length of time. Better to just pass through on the way to Vegas.

Considering that less than 1 percent of all the water on the planet is usable freshwater, we’re not nearly as careful as we should be with this precious resource. To put things in perspective.

◾Set in the desert of Dubai, the Tiger Woods Golf Course uses 4 million gallons of water every day to maintain its lush appearance.◾Since 1950, water usage in the United States has risen 127 percent.◾Even though each person only requires 48 liters of water on a daily basis, individuals in the United States use an average of 500 liters, those in Canada an average of 300 liters and those in England an average of 200 liters.◾Of all the water that enters each household, about 95% of it ends up down the drain.◾With access to just 5 liters of water each day, more than a billion people in water poor regions around the globe survive on the same amount used to flush a toilet or take a 5-minute shower.◾If you shorten your showers by just a single minute, you can save approximately 700 gallons of water in a month.◾Letting the tap run when you brush your teeth wastes up to 4 gallons of water every time.◾It takes an average of 300 gallons to water your lawn. During the summer, this can account for almost half of your water usage.◾Every time you throw your clothes in the washer, you use about 50 gallons of water.◾Another wasteful desert endeavor, the proposed Waveyards water park in Mesa, Arizona will require up to 100 million gallons of groundwater every year in an area that receives a mere 8 inches of rainfall in that time.

Don't know for sure but I suspect that in some parts of the water challenged Southwest those who water their lawn probably lose a third to a half of it to evaporation before it hits the ground.

In Detroit, one of the biggest problems for the Detroit Water and Sewage Dept. is getting running or dripping water shut off in abandoned buildings.

Some of the water and sewage systems in the Northeast are over a century old.

When I moved into my current house the two month water bill was around $30. Now its over $200.

In an earlier comment the vast Nubian aquifer was given as a resource worth fighting over.

Although no one is sure how the Romans accomplished the fete, until the conquest of north Africa by the Arabs, it was lush farmland, serviced by a complex, integrated system of agueducts, canals, lakes, terracing, and other water management projects. Through wanton destruction and ignorance of the fundamentals of hydrology by the Arabs, the land returned to desert. As this is written archaeologists and engineers are trying to unravel the mystery. It needs be pointed out that at the time of the 4th C. C.E. the climate was about the same as today.

“We need to strengthen research for efficiently produced, healthy food, while ensuring the availability of food at affordable prices. This includes improving logistics, infrastructure, and transportation systems to ensure those who need food are supplied with it.”

"There are still hungry people in Ethiopia, but they are hungry because they have no money, no longer because there is no food to buy ....we strongly resent the abuse of our poverty to sway the interests of the European public."

Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher of the Institute of Sustainable Development in Addis Ababa, in response to a comment in late 1997 by a British scientist who claimed that those who want GMOs banned are undermining the position of starving people in Ethiopia.

"We do not believe that such companies or gene technologies will help our farmers to produce the food that is needed in the 21st century. On the contrary, we think it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and the sustainable agricultural systems that our farmers have developed for millennia and that it will thus undermine our capacity to feed ourselves."

Statement by 24 leading African agriculturalists and environmental scientists representing their countries at the UN in response to claims by Monsanto that GM crops will help feed the world's growing population.

"History has many records of crimes against humanity, which were also justified by dominant commercial interests and governments of the day. Despite protests from citizens, social justice for the common good was eroded in favour of private profits. Today, patenting of life forms and the genetic engineering which it stimulates, is being justified on the grounds that it will benefit society, especially the poor, by providing better and more food and medicine.

But in fact, by monopolising the 'raw' biological materials, the development of other options is deliberately blocked.Farmers therefore, become totally dependent on the corporations for seeds".

Original post: Slipped into the Agricultural Appropriations Bill, which passed through Congress last week, was a small provision that’s a big deal for Monsanto and its opponents. The provision protects genetically modified seeds from litigation in the face of health risks and has thus been dubbed the “Monsanto Protection Act” by activists who oppose the biotech giant. President Barack Obama signed the spending bill, including the provision, into law on Tuesday

Since the act’s passing, more than 250,000 people have signed a petition opposing the provision and a rally, consisting largely of farmers organized by the Food Democracy Now network, protested outside the White House Wednesday. Not only has anger been directed at the Monsanto Protection Act’s content, but the way in which the provision was passed through Congress without appropriate review by the Agricultural or Judiciary Committees. The biotech rider instead was introduced anonymously as the larger bill progressed — little wonder food activists are accusing lobbyists and Congress members of backroom dealings.

Written by Monsanto with the aid of Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mssouri) and slipped in by Barbara Mikulski.

Monsanto does business with the EU with just enough complaining to give the EU the appearance of concern.

Without the R&D of Monsanto, far more people would be starving. As to the bill, I cannot offer an opinion except to say it is not the first time the US government has given cover to an industry - railroads come to mind.. Certainly, French farmers will be pleased if Monsanto abandons the EU, given the comfy subsides they receive from Germany to continue gross inefficiencies, why not? I am pretty sure the Chinese et al will be far less concerned with unscientific gamesmanship.

Governmental regulatory agencies, scientific organizations and leading health associations worldwide agree that food grown from GM crops is safe to eat. The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, among others that have examined the evidence, all come to the same conclusion: consuming foods con¬taining ingredients derived from GM crops is safe to eat and no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredi¬ents from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques (i.e. plant breeding).

Among others, these internationally recognized bodies have supported GM products.The US National Academy of SciencesThe American Association for the Advancement of ScienceThe American Medical AssociationThe European CommissionRoyal Society of MedicineThe French Supreme Courthttp://rameznaam.com/2013/04/28/the-evidence-on-gmo-safety/

President Barack Obama has promised the American people that his health care plan “will help bring our deficits under control in the long term.” But so far, the cost estimates coming out of the Congressional Budget Office are not matching up with Obama’s rhetoric. The latest CBO scoring of the Senate’s leading bill, Dodd-Kennedy, estimates that Obamacare will add $597 billion over just the next ten years. Meanwhile, CBO director Doug Elmendorf has said the House health plan will increase the budget deficit by $239 billion over ten years, and “generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits during the decade beyond the current 10-year budget window.”But a fair-minded person may ask:

But those are just cost estimates; what is the federal government’s track record when it comes to accurately measuring the future costs of health care programs? Well, the Senate Joint Economic Committee has released a report studying exactly that issue, and they found that health care plan costs are always dramatically underestimated. From the report:

Medicare (hospital insurance). In 1965, as Congress considered legislation to establish a national Medicare program, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance portion of the program, Part A, would cost about $9 billion annually by 1990.v Actual Part A spending in 1990 was $67 billion. The actuary who provided the original cost estimates acknowledged in 1994 that, even after conservatively discounting for the unexpectedly high inflation rates of the early ‘70s and other factors, “the actual [Part A] experience was 165% higher than the estimate.”

Medicare (entire program). In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the new Medicare program, launched the previous year, would cost about $12 billion in 1990. Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $110 billion—off by nearly a factor of 10.

Medicaid DSH program. In 1987, Congress estimated that Medicaid’s disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments—which states use to provide relief to hospitals that serve especially large numbers of Medicaid and uninsured patients—would cost less than $1 billion in 1992. The actual cost that year was a staggering $17 billion. Among other things, federal lawmakers had failed to detect loopholes in the legislation that enabled states to draw significantly more money from the federal treasury than they would otherwise have been entitled to claim under the program’s traditional 50-50 funding scheme.

Iraq was only supposed to cost $80 billion. This was laughed at by others in OZ that said it wouldn't cost anything since it would be paid for by oil money from the grateful Iraqis.

The fully accounted total cost of the F-35 has now at least doubled making it the most expensive weapons system in history.

Some people suggested the government shutdown would actually save money. Morons. All we are seeing is a congressional hissy fit that has caused unnecessary inconvenience to many a paid vacation for government workers.

Luckily, this causes zero pain to those responsible. It's not their money.

“To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men, their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogmas.” –G. Brock Chisholm, co-founder of the World Federation for Mental Health, former director of UN World Health Organization

The public roads - one doesn't have a 'right' to use them. You must have a license, which can be taken away, you must follow the rules society has imposed, generally you can't go over 70mph, you can't be drunk, etc. or you privileges to drive may be taken from you by society.

A mob of a hundred bikers all over the road poses a danger to other drivers and passengers. All impedes the safe flow of traffic,etc.

Sewer rat is ((((( c r a z y )))))

"There's something really wrong with you, Rat"

Trish

Sewer rat thought these bikers were simply gathering - peacefully assembling, as he put it - to petition government for a redress of grievances, or some shit.

With regards to the F35, it would be a bitch to build a less than stellar product, then have to get your competitor to sign off on it and buy, rather than cancel the program.

The incoming director of the Pentagon’s F-35 program says that the US Defense Department’s relationship with the contractor responsible for the most expensive weapons project ever is on the verge of fallout.

Speaking at the Air Force Association's annual conference outside of Washington, DC on Monday, Maj. Gen. Christopher Bogdan had harsh words to describe the bond between the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin Corp, the DoD contractor that continues to encounter one roadblock after another as it works towards developing the military’s most advanced fighter jet ever.

According to one recent estimate, the F-35 project will cost the United States $1.5 trillion by the time it is all done. To Bogdan, the Pentagon’s association with the aircraft manufacturer is making matters abhorrent.“It is the worst I have ever seen,” Bogdan described the relationship to reporters.

Bogdan is expected to formally take over for the F-35 program later this year after the endeavor’s current manager formally retires from the Pentagon. And if his statements from Monday are any indication of how he intends on running things, Lockheed need to look towards shaping up if they expect to continue working with unarguably their biggest client — the Department of Defense.

"Here comes a little bit of straight talk," Bogdan told attendees. "Today, I am going to manage this program as if there is no more time and no more money."

The Joint Program Office will "have to fundamentally change the way we do business with Lockheed Martin,” said Bogdan. "Lockheed Martin is showing some improvements in producing this aircraft. Is it coming fast enough for us? No."

Onward, with information from leaked documents and an assessment of the budgetary impasse ...

Leaked documents from a Pentagon budget review suggest that the agency is tired of its costly F-35 fighter jets, and has thoughts about cancelling the $391.2 billion program that has already expanded into 10 foreign countries.

Pentagon officials held a briefing on Wednesday in which they mapped out ways to manage the $500 billion in automated budget cuts required over the next decade. A slideshow laid out a number of suggestions and exposed the Pentagon’s frustration with its F-35 jets, which are designed and manufactured by Lockheed Martin Corp. based out of Bethesda, Md. The agency also suggested scrapping plans for a new stealthy, long-range bomber, attendees of the briefing told Reuters.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel spoke to reporters on Wednesday and indicated that the Pentagon might have to decide between a "much smaller force" and a decade-long "holiday" from modernizing weapons systems and technology.

Pentagon briefing slides indicated that a decision to maintain a larger military "could result in the cancellation of the $392 billion Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 program and a new stealthy, long-range bomber," Reuters reports.

Canadian tv has a program similar to 60 Minutes and about a year ago they went into the lies and corruption that have been part of the whole F-35 procurement program in Canada. The U.S. has been browbeating allies like Japan and South Korea to buy these planes. Israel wanted modified F-22's but agreed to buy the F-35's. The US is giving them 20 of them in 2015.

The fully accounted total cost of the F-35 has now at least doubled making it the most expensive weapons system in history.

---

DougWed Oct 09, 09:57:00 AM EDT

Health Care Reform Cost Estimates: What is the Track Record?

Medicare (entire program). In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the new Medicare program, launched the previous year, would cost about $12 billion in 1990. Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $110 billion—off by nearly a factor of 10.

Medicaid DSH program. In 1987, Congress estimated that Medicaid’s disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments—which states use to provide relief to hospitals that serve especially large numbers of Medicaid and uninsured patients—would cost less than $1 billion in 1992. The actual cost that year was a staggering $17 billion.

Medicaid DSH program. In 1987, Congress estimated that Medicaid’s disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments—which states use to provide relief to hospitals that serve especially large numbers of Medicaid and uninsured patients—would cost less than $1 billion in 1992. The actual cost that year was a staggering $17 billion.

And think of the progress we've made since the days when weapons systems were independently created for each of the services. Can't think of the names now, but there were some missiles being created for the Air Force, Army, Marines there for awhile, all basically the same......

Just the 20 we are giving Israel cost $2.75 billion and I don't believe that includes amortization of the R$D costs. Current price of each is $207 million and when fully accounted (based on latest estimated sales which are dropping) goes to over $300 million.

To think that General Dynamics would attempt to influence the procurement policies of the US military ....

That Anonymous would think that the largest single stock holder in General Dynamics, Lester Crown, would be involved in anything so nefarious, as buying politicians, at the start of their careers. When they are much less expensive ...

The JPO also released the final LRIP unit price for each of the three F-35 variants. These prices are:-- $105 million for each of 22 F-35A Conventional Take-off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft for the US Air Force;-- $125 million for each of seven F-35C Carrier Variant (CV) aircraft for the US Navy; and-- $113 million for each of 3 F-35B Short Take-off Vertical Landing (STOVL) aircraft for the US Marine Corps.

These prices are expressed in BY12 dollars, and do not include the aircraft’s F-135 engine, which is procured separately.

The average unit cost of these three variants is $114.3 million, rising to $146.3 million when the cost of its engine is added. http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/141238/**f_35-lot-5-unit-costs-exceed-$223m.html

Which was a program canceled by Mr Obama, back in early 2009.One of his first actions as President, cancel the F22.

July 21 2009

This is a big deal: The Senate today voted to halt production of the F-22 stealth fighter plane, and it did so 58-40, a margin much wider than expected.

Not only is this a major victory for Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who lobbied strenuously (something he rarely does) to kill this program, and for President Barack Obama, who pledged to veto the defense bill if it contained a nickel for more F-22s. The vote might also mark the beginning of a new phase in defense politics, a scaling-back of the influence that defense contractors have over budgets and policies.

Then again, I might be dreaming. Surely things couldn't be changing quite that much. Could they?

In any case, the blow against the F-22 is a substantial step. Gates has been publicly inveighing against the fighter for more than a year, calling it a Cold War relic, noting that it hasn't been used in any of the wars we've fought lately, and noting that our current stock—187 F-22s, which have cost $60 billion to develop, build, and maintain to date—is more than adequate to handle the extremely narrow and unlikely range of threats for which they might be suitable in the future.

The Air Force brass wanted $4 billion in the fiscal year 2010 budget to build 20 more F-22s. Gates slashed the request to zero. The Senate Armed Services Committee voted, 13-11, to shift $1.7 billion from other programs in order to fund another seven planes. That's the line item that the full Senate excised this afternoon.

The amendment to halt the plane's production was co-sponsored by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and John McCain, R-Ariz. McCain, who has never been an F-22 fan, went so far as to quote at some length President Dwight Eisenhower's farewell address, which warned of the "military-industrial complex," though McCain noted that the proper phrase should be the "military-industrial-congressional complex."

It's hard to imagine that there's a whole lot of difference between the fighting ability of the two planes, Rat. They're both stealthy, and they both do virtually all of their damage from 20+ miles out.

The Air Force shrewdly spread the plane's contracts to firms in 46 states, thus giving a solid majority of senators—and a lot of House members, too—a financial (and, therefore, electoral) stake in the program's survival.

Widening the constituency is a tried-and-true method of keeping dubious weapons systems alive. It dates back to 1960, when the managers of the Army's Nike-Zeus missile-defense program set up subcontractors in 37 states, fearing that the incoming president, John F. Kennedy, would try to kill the system. (Their fear was well-founded; Kennedy and his defense secretary, Robert McNamara, did kill the Nike-Zeus, though the chiefs later pushed through an upgrade.)

The long history of congressional-contractor relations makes today's Senate vote all the more remarkable. The vote was not along party lines: 15 Republicans sided with Obama and Gates to kill the F-22; 15 Democrats (counting Sen. Joe Lieberman, who's an Independent) voted to keep the plane alive.

Rather, it was a vote that reflected corporate contracts. The floor leaders of the faction in favor of more F-22s were Sens. Saxby Chambliss, a Republican from Georgia, where the F-22 is assembled, and Chris Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut, where parts of the plane are built. Joining this strange couple were such erstwhile doves as Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein of California, which also hosts several F-22 contractors.

Other than the F22, the U.S. has no other 5th generation fighter in the pipeline, nothing to compete with the new Russian and Chinese planes that are in development. There is no way the MIC will admit a mistake and take the hit to prestige and t sales.

“In a world of seven billion people, set to grow to nine billion by 2050, wasting food makes no sense – economically, environmentally and ethically, aside from the cost implications, all the land, water, fertilizers and labour needed to grow that food is wasted – not to mention the generation of greenhouse gas emissions produced by food decomposing on landfill and the transport of food that is ultimately thrown away.”UN Under-Secretary-General and UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner

Medicaid DSH program. In 1987, Congress estimated that Medicaid’s disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments—which states use to provide relief to hospitals that serve especially large numbers of Medicaid and uninsured patients—would cost less than $1 billion in 1992. The actual cost that year was a staggering $17 billion.

The US was spending $100 billion annually to occupy Iraq.$17 billion would be ... 17%

17% of 365 ... that comes to 62.

So, two months of the US occupation of Iraq,is now considered a "Staggering" amount, when it comes to the health and well being of the American people, as opposed to protecting US "Interests" in Iraq for two months?

So what if the projections are off, the expense is not "staggering", it is inconsequential. Especially when compared to the other expenses of the Federal government

Desert rat wrote, "There will be no "Real Cuts" to Social Security benefits"

I must disagree. If one accepts the government's metrics, all is well. However, there are some first-rate economists who insist the inflation rate is near 9% and that this has been the case for some time. .

If a Social Security recipient is getting $1,000 per month, today ...A "Real Cut" is if they were to receive $950 per month next year.

If for the next three years the stipend did not increase, stayed a $1,000 pr month, that would not be a "Real Cut" in Social Security benefits.Not receiving an increase in the monthly stipend, that is not a "Real Cut", allen

"We in France have set the objective of halving food waste by 2025. Currently we are mobilizing the whole of the food chain, from producers and industry, through distribution, and up to consumers for this essential action. This is why I welcome this UNEP and FAO initiative, which will create an international mobilization that will prove more effective by virtue of everybody working together. The fight against food waste on a global scale is a key priority of civilization and an imperative path we must take if we want to ameliorate the food challenge."Guillaume GAROT, French Minister Agrofood

The Palestinian statehood vote in the UN shows support for Israel confined to the United States and a handful of nations likely to be supporting the US rather than Israel.

The question is – why does the US continue to blindly and unconditionally support a nation which ignores international law? As you so often document, there is little to admire in this aggressive Middle Eastern state but America’s entire foreign policy appears to be dictated by a tiny bunch of religious fundamentalists half a world away. Relating to the post on water, Israel defies any accepted sense of decency:

The fact that so many still entertain that Israel should give up her inheritance is bad enough, but many think that Israel should divide Jerusalem.Ponder that for a moment! Would you ask the French to divide Paris? Would you ask the Italians to divide Rome? There are a lot of people who think it outrageous that the British divided Ireland in 1921. We Americans fought to preserve our own unity during the Civil War; and did so even though both the British and French favored the Confederates. We defied world opinion to win

(Reuters) - China will be able to fend off U.S. forces and successfully invade Taiwan by 2020, the island's Defense Ministry said on Wednesday, the first time Taipei has given such a precise timetable for the threat it says it faces.

China and Taiwan have been ruled separately since Nationalist forces, defeated by the Communists, fled to the island at the end of the Chinese civil war in 1949. China considers Taiwan a renegade province and has never ruled out the use of force to bring it under its control.

While relations have improved dramatically since the China-friendly Ma Ying-jeou was elected Taiwan president in 2008, with a series of trade and tourism deals, there has been no progress towards political reconciliation or a lessening of military distrust.

In its annual national defense report, Taiwan's Ministry of National Defense cited a number of ways China will likely enhance its military might aimed at Taiwan, including honing its ability to coordinate a landing on the island and deploying anti-aircraft missiles in the Taiwan Strait.

China has been rapidly modernizing its sea and air forces as well as missile capabilities, according to the report, so that it will be able to prevent intervention from other nations that would come to Taiwan's defense - a reference to the United States, which is treaty bound to come to the island's aid.

"In the future, the Chinese military will continue focusing on further integration of its military units, with the expectation that it will be able to resist foreign forces' intervention in any attack on Taiwan," the report said.

"Over the long-term, it will be wholly sufficient to engage in a war over Taiwan by 2020."

It was the first time the ministry has publicly issued a specific timetable for China's military build-up to reach globally-dominant levels, said ministry spokesman Luo Shou-he.

China's Defense Ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment, though the government has repeatedly said the world has nothing to fear from its military spending which is needed for legitimate defensive purposes.

China has advertised its long-term military ambitions with shows of new hardware, including its first test flight of a stealth fighter jet in early 2011 and its launch of a fledgling aircraft carrier - both trials of technologies needing years more of development.

Beijing is also building new submarines, ships and anti-ship ballistic missiles as part of its naval modernization, and has tested emerging technology aimed at destroying missiles in mid-air.

Chinese President Xi Jinping told an envoy from Taiwan on Sunday that a political solution to the standoff over sovereignty could not be postponed forever.

You know, if they don't want to increase the debt ceiling to pay for the gov's bills then the solution seems pretty straight forward - raise enough revenues to pay the bills. Time to up taxes! How about a VAT?

I see you still have trouble comprehending the world around you. The US government has bills to pay. If they don't want to borrow to pay those bills then they have to do something to pay them and the only other option is to raise taxes in order to pay those bills. Are you suggesting they should simply not pay the bills?

rat doesn't play poker, Quirk. He has never mentioned poker before. He bowls with his buds, drinks beer at the alley and they all dream about leading militias, taking the law into their own hands. He is not smart enough to be a real lawyer, so he dreams.

Liberal Democrat: I think we can all agree that the Renewable Fuel Standard has “been a flop”POSTED AT 8:41 PM ON OCTOBER 9, 2013 BY ERIKA JOHNSEN

True that lawmakers’ allegiance or opposition to the Renewable Fuel Standard — one of the many EPA-administered “green energy” mandates that requires refiners to blend an ever-increasing volume of regulators’ favored biofuels with the nation’s fuel supply, or else purchase credits — often correlates more closely with their geographical loyalties over their party identification, but the apologetics of the economically- and environmentally-damaging practice definitely skew Democratic. The “Environmental Protection” Agency plays major defense for the Big Ethanol lobby largely because the White House wants to have as many types of alternative-energy programs in their arsenal as possible, the better to cushion their “all of the above,” “less foreign oil,” “climate change mitigation” recitations, and plenty of Congressional Democrats are content to follow suit.

Ergo, this is notable and most welcome development, via The Hill:

The federal requirement for gas refiners to mix biofuel in with conventional gasoline is a “flop,” according to Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), and should be eliminated.

Welch said that the renewable fuel standard, administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), drives up the cost of corn, which ends up raising prices for dairy farmers in his state as well as other livestock producers.

Plus, he said, the amount of energy required to produce the biofuel ends up hurting the environment.

“It’s been a flop, and the amount of energy that goes into producing a gallon of ethanol is a lot. Twenty-eight gallons of water to produce a gallon of gas, 170 gallons, I guess, to produce a gallon of ethanol,” he said.

“There’s not been an environment benefit; there’s actually been an environmental detriment and there’s been an economic detriment to many sectors of the economy, even though there’s been a significant benefit to the Corn Belt,” Welch said.

Even so, the EPA has utterly refused to back down from their… a policy with which the White House is clearly on board, given their veto threat of the mandate’s repeal.Both the idea and the actual legislation for repealing this expensive and market-defying boondoggle of a mandate have already garnered bipartisan support, but if we are ever going to rid ourselves of the food-and-gasoline price-spiking consequences of this particularly insidious bit of central planning, it’s going to need a lot more political momentum — and it is way past time to do away with this thing once and for all.

The alfalfa farming Fascist Fudd is once again bearing false witness.By trying to tell us that the Egyptians would be eating the ethanol feedstocks.

The so-called "food vs. fuel" wrongly asserts that a choice must be made between corn for food and corn for ethanol; in reality, the U.S. corn supply is ample enough to satisfy the needs of food, fuel, and feed markets.

Misunderstanding corn for human consumption- Many don't realize that corn for ethanol and corn for human consumption are two different types. Field corn, the type used to feed livestock, goes into ethanol production. Sweet corn, a very small portion of the U.S. crop, is the type eaten by humans.

- Critics routinely overstate how much corn is consumed as human food; in reality, less than 10 percent of the U.S. corn crop is annually used for human food in the form of sweeteners, cereals, etc.

- Those spinning the "food vs. fuel" debate suggest that U.S. corn exports go directly to feed the malnourished in developing countries and that ethanol directly removes food from those in need. In reality, the majority of corn exports from the U.S. are used to feed livestock in developed countries.

- There is more food per capita today on a global scale than ever before, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Lack of infrastructure, access to capital, political instability, and other issues are the more likely causes of hunger than scarcity of food.

Just as we read up thread, there is plenty of food in the world.40% of it is wasted, in the production-consumption cycle.

Anonymous is a Fraudulent Farmer, no one should give credence to the morbid musings of Fascist Fudd.

- There is more food per capita today on a global scale than ever before, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Lack of infrastructure, access to capital, political instability, and other issues are the more likely causes of hunger than scarcity of food.

desert ratWed Oct 09, 10:21:00 PM EDTIf you had READ, the thread, Fascist Fudd, you'd have learned there is plenty of food in the world.No shortages of food, just shortages of money to pay for it.But being a Low Information Voter, you have never allowed a fact to interfere with your opinions.

Alzheimer’s breakthrough: British scientists pave way for simple pill to cure diseaseHistoric ‘turning point’ hailed as UK researchers discover how to halt death of brain cells, opening new pathway for future drug treatments

Heritage Action, a prominent conservative group leading the charge against the health law, said it would support a short-term extension of the country's borrowing limit—but only to refocus the fight on the health law.

"We should raise the debt limit," Heritage Action Chief Executive Michael Needham said at a breakfast organized by the Christian Science Monitor. But he insisted that curbs on the health law be attached to any measure reopening the government.

A number of prominent conservatives agree with that tactic. "I still think Obamacare is central" to the broader budget impasse, said Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio).

"Not only is the F-35 roughly ten years behind schedule and 100% over budget, it’s still years from being operational. At Eglin Air Forc Base in Florida, where F-35’s are being tested, its current safety limitations are severe: “the squadrons at Eglin are prohibited from flying at night, prohibited from flying at supersonic speed, prohibited from flying in bad weather (including within 25 miles of lightning), prohibited from dropping live ordnance, and prohibited from firing their guns,” according to a September 16 article in Vanity Fair"

The Obama administration will cut hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to Egypt to register displeasure over the military's pace of restoring democracy following the ouster of President Mohammed Morsi.

Arizona is a long way and they only let me out on work release for about 9 hours a day. I've put in for reintegration leave but I haven't been accepted into the program yet. I could ask for a leave to attend a funeral but they always send a cop with you so it probably wouldn't work. The only other option is to ask for a leave to visit a gravely ill person something that just might work in this case.

I'll let you know.

:)

Hey, wait a minute. Didn't you invite Melody down there a while back and then give her the wrong address? Fool me once my friend.

The blog is really informative and i like to share it with my friends.I love to come back on a regular basis, please post more on the subject.Your posts are simply fabulous and inspiring . Thanks for the inspiration!

Magnificent Ronald and the Founding Fathers of al Qaeda

“These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers.” — Ronald Reagan while introducing the Mujahideen leaders to media on the White house lawns (1985). During Reagan’s 8 years in power, the CIA secretly sent billions of dollars of military aid to the mujahedeen in Afghanistan in a US-supported jihad against the Soviet Union. We repeated the insanity with ISIS against Syria.